Agriculture Committee on Feb. 27th, 2020

[The Chair, Liberal, Pat Finnigan]

Mr. Lehoux, you have five minutes.

[Richard Lehoux, Conservative, Beauce, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

From the outset, you said that in 2018, 31% of farmers had enrolled in AgriStability for approximately 56% of total market revenue.

Why do you think farmers' participation doesn't exceed 31%? Are the programs perhaps too complex or inadequate for the current reality of 2019-20?

Have you looked into it? What conclusions have you drawn from it? When the participation rate in a program is only 31%, there's a problem.

[Paul Samson]

Thank you.

As I said earlier, one of the reasons the participation isn't higher is that the market has been quite strong in recent years. That is now changing. We also understand that the complexity of the program is a challenge, and that's why we've been actively pursuing this with our provincial and territorial colleagues.

[Richard Lehoux, Conservative, Beauce, QC]

You have to look at this quickly, because there are real repercussions, year after year. They've been really significant, especially in the last couple of years, both in terms of late seeding and early harvesting due to the snow that arrived earlier.

What is the mechanism and timeline for the review? Does it depend on the provinces and territories? Who does it depend on?

The owners of the fields often get the runaround. Someone should operate faster. Can we pick up the pace?

[Paul Samson]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

As I explained, we have a work plan that we are working on between now and the ministers' meeting in July. We will provide an update in the spring. However, we are working on that plan in order to provide advice in July.

[Richard Lehoux, Conservative, Beauce, QC]

In my riding, I'm often approached by farm owners who say they don't want to join the program because it's too complex, as you mentioned. I find it disturbing that there is still such a long delay in finding a solution to the problem, given the real impact on the ground and the fact that the last two years have been even more difficult for some agricultural producers.

We talked earlier about the advance payments program. You said that there was a process to be followed, but, if I understand correctly, the administrators have to make an application to the minister so that we can proceed in a more concrete way. Did I understand you correctly?

[Francesco Del Bianco]

Yes, in order to extend the deadline for repayment of advances, the administrator must make a request. The minister will then consider the request and decide whether or not to accept it.

[Richard Lehoux, Conservative, Beauce, QC]

Okay.

With respect to the first component of the AgriRisk initiatives program, what is the approach to be taken?

Again, there are programs available, but they are very complex and very difficult to set up. What specific steps should some companies take? We're talking about technological development, but if we want people to use this program, it has to be accessible.

[Paul Samson]

The AgriRisk initiatives program is one of the smaller programs. One of its goals is to seek out new ideas and new programs. It isn't really a program that directly affects producers. It's about ideas that will come along in the future, and I think it is doing a pretty good job of fulfilling its mandate.

[The Chair, Liberal, Pat Finnigan]

Thank you, Mr. Lehoux.

Mr. Drouin, you have five minutes.

[Francis Drouin, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I want to say how surprised I am that the Conservatives are trying to push CUSMA through even faster, especially since witnesses came to tell us last week that they were opposed to it, particularly for reasons related to the dairy year. I see that news travels fast. I know that my colleagues on the other side would not agree with this approach. In their defence, they are not in the House.

I'd like to ask a question about risk management programs. The federal government and the provinces fund these programs on a 60-40 ratio. If the federal government wanted to increase its funding for all risk management programs while maintaining that ratio, the provinces would have to follow suit. Is that the case?

Regardless of what is going on right now, is that the way negotiations are done with the provinces?

[Paul Samson]

This 60-40 ratio has been fairly stable over the last few years, and we see no reason to change it. It could always be discussed among ministers, but it is a framework that has been in place for a long time.

[Francis Drouin, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Many farmers, especially those in the grain sector, are finding that there are no permanent programs in the U.S. and that producers are receiving billions of dollars in compensation. Of course, they come to us and ask us what is available to them on our side. The AgriStability program is one of the programs that has been mentioned. To date, what possible solutions have you heard about?

I know that some advocate the direct payment approach, while others advocate the program approach. I would like to know if you have heard of any other possibilities. If you have, can you tell us about them?

[Paul Samson]

I will just say that this is one of the topics we are working on with our provincial and territorial colleagues. We don't have a solution to highlight at this time.

[Francis Drouin, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Thank you very much.

Given the range of programs, do all the provinces have to agree to make a change to a program, especially when it comes to its funding? Do all provinces and territories have to say yes?

What happens when one province says no?

[Paul Samson]

There is a formal agreement between the partners. My colleague will give you more details on that.

[Francesco Del Bianco]

As mentioned, all ministers sign an agreement. Usually it takes two-thirds of the provinces representing at least 50% of the market to have an agreement. Of course, since this has an impact on all the provinces, the ideal is to have everyone in agreement.

[Francis Drouin, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Okay.

In the way the programs are applied, there is a question of money, and perhaps the criteria need to be redefined. However, is focus also being put on how quickly certain situations can be responded to so that programs can be applied more quickly?

[Francesco Del Bianco]

There are provisions in the programs. With the AgriStability program, for example, there is a targeted advance and interim payments. The government or the producer can apply to receive a payment that reflects the advance payment.

The AgriInvest program allows farmers to withdraw the money at their discretion.

Measures have already been put in place to ensure that producers can access a certain amount in the immediate future.

[Francis Drouin, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

If I remember correctly, three or four years ago, the committee had difficulty knowing how the provinces' share was being spent.

Is this still the case or will the provinces submit a report to the federal government? We are also accountable to the taxpayers. Are reports submitted on how programs are triggered?

[Paul Samson]

As I said, there is a five-year program framework. We completed the last one almost two years ago. So we have all these figures on shared programs. That said, in terms of the programs that are ongoing, we're still waiting for the data.

[The Chair, Liberal, Pat Finnigan]

Thank you, Mr. Samson and Mr. Drouin.

That concludes this round of questions.

I would like to thank Mr. Del Bianco and Mr. Samson for their time. It will certainly help us in the study that will follow with our partners. I would like to thank them for taking the time to come and testify.

Have a good day.

The meeting is adjourned.